Jump to content
Arsenal53

honestly very disappointed

Recommended Posts

it's my feeling about this opus for now

 

Only the 3D of the planes represents a progress compared to ROF, the map does not represent any progress. the AI is not adapted, it opens fire at distances that correspond rather to the distances of the second world war. it does not manage its speed and defensive maneuvers well and often crashes alone as soon as it goes close to the ground.

no mission, no campaign, no career except creations that come from 3rd party

This volume seems to me only for multiplayer dogfight

I think that all this, for the moment, is too expensiveI really regret my purchase . This makes me much more circumspect for future volumes

 

Edited by Arsenal53
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bots are clearly much better than in RoF. Dogfights are much more dynamic. Not finding them any more difficult to beat all the same.

I haven't seen them fly into the ground too often, but assume maybe their pilot blacked out or lost elevators ?

I agree about the firing distances, way too far out. I thought it may have been 'fixed' in the update but it hasn't been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tail gunners are deadly in this version. Three instant kill shots this weekend only 1 of which involved any sort of tailing.

 

I'm afraid this will turn HPs and Felixes (if released) into B17s.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

Tail gunners are deadly in this version. Three instant kill shots this weekend only 1 of which involved any sort of tailing.

 

I'm afraid this will turn HPs and Felixes (if released) into B17s.

 

Don't use Ace or Veteran AI for two seaters.  Same with AA.  I usually use novice.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I flew three QM's yesterday with the new FC1: my Dr.1 versus 3 SPADs and 2 Brisfits.  The bots were amazing.  Using coordinated movements and good tactics; they attacked, retreated, and disengaged when it made sense.  Nobody dawdling around like in ROF.  No "slow turn of death."  They flew very well by any standard.  

 

Those tail gunners were orbiting below us, occasionally firing vertically!  And when I fought them, they worked together to double-team me and tracked me with their weapons throughout all the turns; hitting me frequently.  I got bloodied, recovered, kept fighting, fueled-out and bailed.   

 

I won't say they are invincible or as good as the best human gunners (or dogfighters) I've seen; but they are damn good and I am very happy with where the Devs have taken the bots.  

 

And I was one of those who was quick to complain about how the bots were.  Not any more.   We have been heard, people.  The bots got botter.

 

Thank you, Devs.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was flying Quick Missions trying to get used to the new feel. I like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best bang for the VR buck I've found so far is in QM, the Zoo, and Misfits.  Looking forward to trying campaigns, too.  This is working well; people are digging it; and I think we can look forward to more from the Developers in the future.  But right now it's outtasight.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AI on ace setting flys and fights better than RL human sprogs did (if you believe the numerous RL accounts). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J3Hetzer said:

The AI on ace setting flys and fights better than RL human sprogs did (if you believe the numerous RL accounts). :)

 

Flying human sprog?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AI  in Spads can drag and bag. 

You cannot destroy planes by sawing wings away via one burst.

Pilot physiology is a complete game changer. In particular, you can't jump a flight of AI planes and expect to effortlessly down them all. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AI certainly have improved since RoF. They still feel a bit tame, but they have surprised me once or twice. 

Edited by US93_Larner
Typos!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like they’re better, but I’d love to see them control themselves a bit more closer to the ground. They’re cratering way too much. I’ve only checked the ace settings, so maybe they’ll try less crazy maneuvers on veteran or lower. Also, I still wish they would be less willing to give up their altitude and/or try harder to regain it, but overall it’s a nice improvement from RoF. 
S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In agreement with Arsenal53 on this one. Flying Circus will not replace ROF as my preferred WWI flight sim, even though it is pretty.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AI seem to suffer the same results from wounds as we are experiencing I nailed a AI DR1 the other day I was real close and saw his head go down so I followed him down. I thought he would crash but his head popped up again and retained control just before impact. We have all felt the dead stick that comes with a good wound and if your low sometimes there is not enough time to recover before crashing. I think its great that the AI is not immune to this its bad enough that they can spot us any were, anytime, thu any kind of cover.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly RoF has a lot more content than FC and that will be the case for a long time.

 

The big advantage of FC over RoF is VR support.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the FC map is a huge improvement over ROF one so I cannot agree that the map doesn't represent any progress, I took some comparison shots of the same locations in ROF vs FC for reference: https://imgur.com/a/XVItrN6

 

Also the AI in ROF makes singleplayer in ROF unplayable for me (and I don't play multiplayer), because they only ever do one thing which is roll and dive, which they repeat over and over until they're too low to do it anymore without crashing down. It's simply impossible to fight with the ROF AI without them immediadly granting you a massive altitude advantage for free. This is far from the case in FC atleast in my experience.

 

Edit: forgot to mention one feature about the map that makes a surprisingly big difference to me - when flying high up you can actually see the shoreline (and even the coast of England if you're high up near the edge of the map),  sight of which really makes me personally feel like I'm flying over northern France - not just a random area far inland full of fields, which is how ROF feels like for me.

image.thumb.png.1315d93c38282d6b4cdd375db46651d3.png

 

image.thumb.png.5ebe1f4cac05fcbbb1a851246c29c3c8.png

Edited by Rothary
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rothary said:

To me the FC map is a huge improvement over ROF one so I cannot agree that the map doesn't represent any progress, I took some comparison shots of the same locations in ROF vs FC for reference: https://imgur.com/a/XVItrN6

 

Also the AI in ROF makes singleplayer in ROF unplayable for me (and I don't play multiplayer), because they only ever do one thing which is roll and dive, which they repeat over and over until they're too low to do it anymore without crashing down. It's simply impossible to fight with the ROF AI without them immediadly granting you a massive altitude advantage for free. This is far from the case in FC atleast in my experience.

 

I have eyes and huge is not proper word IMHO. 

Personally I like pastel  colors palette and RoF visuals which looks more like art painting.

Sky is clear without ugly color banding and posterization . Clouds are old tech but much better that those flat pancakes and without know limitations...

 

 I'm not disappointed , I'm sure it will  change ,devs are constantly working on making it better and it's glued to ww2 so it can only benefit from it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 

I have eyes and huge is not proper word IMHO. 

Personally I like pastel  colors palette and RoF visuals which looks more like art painting.

Sky is clear without ugly color banding and posterization . Clouds are old tech but much better that those flat pancakes and without know limitations...

 

 I'm not disappointed , I'm sure it will  change ,devs are constantly working on making it better and it's glued to ww2 so it can only benefit from it.

That's fine but personally I honestly don't see how the map could be improved much further apart from no man's land (though I don't see 3D trenches ever becoming a thing in this game engine for technical reasons and don't frankly understand why so many people were expecting them). Ground/field textures are are far better in my eyes, forests look a thousand times more natural and better follow the shapes of the fields below making the scenery significantly more natural and pleasing to look at for me. The biggest difference are the cities which are now actually visible from further away while making ROF cities look outdated by atleast a decade when compared side by side details-wise, though I understand that cities aren't necessarily something you actually spend time flying around during missions.

 

I also much prefer the FC colours over the overly washed out palette of ROF, but that (as with the map itself) is clearly a very subjective thing and we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

image.thumb.png.2a47faa21d005cde63c3396b5e209b78.png

 

image.thumb.png.6b3fcb724ce010487e71a12dcf2c2093.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rothary said:

That's fine but personally I honestly don't see how the map could be improved much further apart from no man's land (though I don't see 3D trenches ever becoming a thing in this game engine for technical reasons and don't frankly understand why so many people were expecting them). Ground/field textures are are far better in my eyes, forests look a thousand times more natural and better follow the shapes of the fields below making the scenery significantly more natural and pleasing to look at for me. The biggest difference are the cities which are now actually visible from further away while making ROF cities look outdated by atleast a decade when compared side by side details-wise, though I understand that cities aren't necessarily something you actually spend time flying around during missions.

 

I also much prefer the FC colours over the overly washed out palette of ROF, but that (as with the map itself) is clearly a very subjective thing and we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

image.thumb.png.2a47faa21d005cde63c3396b5e209b78.png

 

image.thumb.png.6b3fcb724ce010487e71a12dcf2c2093.png

 

Look how fields textures are put around rivers , roads etc. What can be done ?? - If you have tech to draw 10000 trees why not draw telegraph poles etc .

 

Il2 BOS colors are wash out , that why so many use reshade . Those images for  comparison has what HDR off , Gamma lowered ?   I agree about more detailed cites but visibility up to 30 km are not to be compared because it's game engin evolution. Without it BOS cites were looking worst seen from distance that ROF 4 sure!

 

Just constructive criticism but I like it overall , and have fun :)

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the bots: do they "adapt" to the players flying style and "improve" over time?  Or is that not in the programming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

About the bots: do they "adapt" to the players flying style and "improve" over time?  Or is that not in the programming?

 

Not unless there has been some radical change which the developers are not telling us about.  AFAIK the AI is not a learning algorithm, just a set of instructions: if A do X etc.
The only improvement they can make is in a career where they might get "promoted" from novice to ace over time, but that just gives them a slightly different instruction set.

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Not unless there has been some radical change which the developers are not telling us about.  AFAIK the AI is not a learning algorithm, just a set of instructions: if A do X etc.
The only improvement they can make is in a career where they might get "promoted" from novice to ace over time, but that just gives them a slightly different instruction set.

   

 

Thanks.  The way I've seen them appear to improve and adapt to me; there's been times when I wasn't really sure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bot difference is amazing, I think. For that reason alone - I play only SP - I cannot go back to RoF. But also the map is way more realistic and submersive. I think it's an excellent title, sorry - and I'm hoping more content will follow. PWCG is really excellent, so there's already many more hours than I have time for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before elsewhere, but there is a lot about FC to like, and one or two bits that are inevitably not so good, it being an evolutionary step forward from ROF rather than a revolutionary leap.

 

I certainly would claim to be disappointed with the whole thing as it offer lots of little improvement over ROF that make it well worth the purchase price, the only bit I'd claim to be disappointed with is no-mans land. To be fair the devs delivered everything they said they would in terms of no mans land and what they have produced is an improvement over ROF, it's just that in ROF no-mans land was also a let down so I was kind of hoping for a more significant improvement in this to try bring things to a more even standard across the board.

 

ROF took a good few years to grow into itself, and I dare say FC will do the same, it just might develop a little quicker than ROF if it is gaining all sorts of additional technical  improvements to the game engine that are effectively being developed for the WWII market.

Edited by HappyHaddock
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still writing my Flying Circus review but I think the one thing missing from the conversation here is surrounding potential. Although the question right now is very much if Flying Circus Vol 1 is worth the price (and that will be variable depending on your priorities) there is also future considerations.

 

If there does happen to be a Vol 2, we'll be likely moving 10 more aircraft closer to Rise of Flight which sits at about 40 (so we'll be 50% of the way there with another 10) and hopefully adding Career and some scripted campaigns either included or sold separately.

 

Even if there is not a Vol 2, Flying Circus is now intrinsically part of Great Battles Series and that means that additional AI improvements, graphics improvements, etc. will be part of the package moving forward.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I'm still writing my Flying Circus review but I think the one thing missing from the conversation here is surrounding potential.

 

As a brand new customer, that was the most powerful impression I had when I began playing the game.  The sheer potential for Flying Circus is absolutely huge.   What will be interesting to see is whether that potential can be realised before moving on to the next thing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

surrounding potential

 

I don't mean to sound too pessimist but the theme of "potential" has been so over-used (specifically among those who debate around these products, I'd say) it has become meaningless. Damn, it even makes me nervous! :scratch_one-s_head:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Picchio said:

 

I don't mean to sound too pessimist but the theme of "potential" has been so over-used (specifically among those who debate around these products, I'd say) it has become meaningless. Damn, it even makes me nervous! :scratch_one-s_head:

 

Sure it has but I tend not to use the term unless I feel justified in saying it.

 

Back in 2013-14 when IL-2: Battle of Stalingrad came out we had a new sim that had only 10 aircraft, a poor single player campaign experience, an unwanted unlock system, and lots of under developed features that earlier versions of the sim had done better. It took time but the series as grown and become very impressive spawning multiple follow-up titles, correcting past mistakes, adding depth to the gameplay and to the simulation, added a tank simulation and even adding Flying Circus. If we look at things from that lens, the series has become quite the success story (though of course it's never perfect). Back when it came out I wrote a review (which you can read here: http://www.battle-fields.com/2014/12/il-2-battle-stalingrad-review/) stating that it had potential. It clearly did and it clearly had issues and eventually it grew out of those and my impression is that Flying Circus will likely grow out of its issues more quickly.

 

I will be making this argument in my full review which I hope to publish soon - it's been a bit delayed because of how busy I've been.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll just limit it to this.

 

All the battle packs, etc. in IL-2 GBs cost $80 USD (Premium regular). Fair enough for me based on the quality of the product, even though it’s a bit expensive, it’s okay for most people. However, FC1 costs right now $70 USD, soon to be $80 USD ($90-100 CDN). For that amount of money we get a small 100x100km map, 10 planes that we can already fly on RoF and have the same, if not, very similar flight experience, and pretty much everything else that’s in RoF, save for the remaining planes, Campaigns, Pilot Career.

 

I’m sorry, but IMHO, I think that it’s totally unfair that people payed up to $200 CDN for RoF content and if they want FC1 have to pay $70 USD. $70 USD for Bodenplatte, TC is alright, but $70 USD for a 100x100km map (unlike the larger Western/Eastern front maps in RoF), same planes, pretty much same FM/DMs, and just SLIGHTLY better graphics, VR, parachutes, no campaign, no Pilot Career, except for PWCG in FC1. And all these people who supported RoF just got mainly a $10 discount. Not really a discount IMO.

For all these other packs, we haven’t seen these planes/maps before, or in a long time like back in IL-2 1946. But we’ve seen these maps/planes before in RoF which was made by 777 Studios and the technology there was used to make IL-2 BoS, later IL-2 GBs. I would pay $70 for an actual update to RoF, but not a remake of RoF.

 

I understand that flight sims today are a niche market and that WW1 is more of a niche, but based on what we can get in RoF I feel that $70 for FC1 and what it contains is not worth it, more worth $50 USD as the FC1 planes in RoF cost $50 CDN (Channel battles and St.Mihiel). 

 

If a FC2 happens I hope that there will be content (like a few new planes entirely, etc.) that will make it worth the price it’s sold at, but right now $70 for FC1, especially those who supported RoF by buying all or almost all the DLCs, isn’t really worth it. I’m deeply sorry.

 

1. If one bought a car in 2013 and right now bought a new car, or if one bought Aces of the Pacific in 1992 and then bought Pacific Fighters in 2004, or if an airline purchased 10 A320s in 1993 and right now purchased 10 A320neos, then one/they didn’t waste their money on the previous product.

 

2. Rise of flight is an old game, dated graphics, yes. But the game engine for IL-2 1946 is almost 10 years older and has much dated graphics than Rise of Flight, and IL-2 1946 is still being supported.

 

Thank you for reading what I have to say. And this wasn’t really an attack, this was just my views on this.

Edited by Novice-Flyer
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent my 200 smakers on ROF as well and spent at least 1000 probably more hours in it that's max 5 cents an hour for great entertainment. Who hasn't spent 50 or 60 bucks on a game just to play it thru a time or too I know I have, for the 100 buck Canadian I spent on this I already got my moneys worth just with the VR aspect alone, Ill be happy if they just port over all the planes over time ……..and maybe another season.

Edited by DirtyBiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how pricing (for most non-essential consumer goods anyway) works. The seller attempts to set prices at whatever figure will give the maximum return on investment. Potential buyers then have the choice as to whether to buy at that price or not. And since different potential customers will have differing ideas as to what they are prepared to pay, any price set to maximise returns will inevitably be too high for some. That's how a capitalist economy works. That's the economic system the IL-2 GB developers are working under. Whether a potential customer thinks their prices are 'fair' or not is an irrelevance. Buy, or don't buy.  That is the only input that matters. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Here's how pricing (for most non-essential consumer goods anyway) works. The seller attempts to set prices at whatever figure will give the maximum return on investment. Potential buyers then have the choice as to whether to buy at that price or not. And since different potential customers will have differing ideas as to what they are prepared to pay, any price set to maximise returns will inevitably be too high for some. That's how a capitalist economy works. That's the economic system the IL-2 GB developers are working under. Whether a potential customer thinks their prices are 'fair' or not is an irrelevance. Buy, or don't buy.  That is the only input that matters. 


Welcome to the machine-world, where human interaction, good-will and empathy are subsumed by the capitalist dogma.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 1:56 AM, Novice-Flyer said:

I understand that flight sims today are a niche market and that WW1 is more of a niche, but based on what we can get in RoF I feel that $70 for FC1 and what it contains is not worth it, more worth $50 USD as the FC1 planes in RoF cost $50 CDN (Channel battles and St.Mihiel). 

 

It is a niche market, that the whole point. You don't know how many people bought FC, I don't either, but I am pretty sur it is not a cash cow. We are interested in a niche product, we have to accept to pay a relatively high price for a limited content.

 

To compare like with like, FC is still a pretty good deal compared to your average FSX or DCS third party content.

 

I am myself disappointed by FC, I would have rather them to port less planes and to add some SP content. But I would not say it is too expensive. We guys are spending hundreds of hours on this product, thousands of euros on hardware (VR player here), frankly I could not care less to spend 30 more or 30 less euros to fund the guys that make this amazing game.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who didn't put much time into RoF, FCv1 is a bit of a mixed bag for me. The aircraft are fantastic, each one feeling distinct with dozens of quirks and details to notice. The dogfights are intense and you have to really be on top of things as aircraft can do a full loop around you in no time at all, it's a lot faster paced than dogfights over Stalingrad, despite the much slower aircraft. The map is lovely and well up to the standards of the best of Il-2 with beautiful towns and recognisable, easy to follow landmarks that make navigating enjoyable...

 

It's just all a bit dry, isn't it? No missions, no career, no voice acting from your gunner, even. There's no personality to it. BoX suffers from this problem too but it feels so much more pronounced for some reason, and it's difficult to justify playing the multiplayer alone when all my squadmates are flying WW2 birds exclusively and I could go join them

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah disappointed is not the word I would use. We got exactly what we were told we were gonna get so it's hard to feel ripped off. That said, it's also hard not to want more

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want an improvement to Rise of Flight, here are the options:

 

1. If you're a VR enthusiast and can only fly in VR, then for $70 USD ($94 CDN) get FC.

 

2. If you don't want FC, but want to improve RoF, then check this out https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/45387-updatedfixed-links-panthers-favorite-mods/

 

I chose the 2nd option and I love it. However, I can't go back to the "vanilla" RoF

 

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...